Living with the dead - in the attic

[spirichard]

Hi everyone

I am sorry its a bit late for this but I have recently discovered this forum and feel very at home in this new found haven for sceptics.

I have only seen one episode of Living With The Dead which was "Ghost In The Attic" or the one with the chair in it. The reason being because my paranormal investigation group was involved in it so one of them recorded it for me.

My group, which is made up of believers, sensitives, a medium and the scpetical members, have been going to the house for a few years before the episode was filmed following reports from the owners of disturbing paranormal activity. We never filmed any paranormal activity but our medium attempted a clearence, more then once, each time failing to solve the prioblem.

The medium was always drawn to the room under the attic, possibly by coinsidence? who knows but the owner of the house later revealled to us that there was something unusual in the attic. The attic room definately isn't original however it is at least 30 years old and has been there since the current owners moved in. Thats when the idea arose that the chair could be linked with the activity.

We had discussions with several TV companies at the time but one of them was told about the chair and obviously decided to go with it.

As for my thoughts on the show itself, well to be honest I was a tad dissapointed. One of my team members had alot of discussions with one of the producers throughout the filming of the entire serious attempting to offer guidance as to what paranormal investigations are really like. However what I saw was a hell of a lot of re-constructions (which is the thing I most dislike about Haunted Homes) and a lot of dramatics. There was too much focus on the mediums and very little attention paid to investigating the facts which is probably why a few dates were mixed up.

Johnnie Fiouri (sp?) - I haven't met Johnnie personally, but my main concern is getting a trained actor to "play the part" of a medium. Actors are trained to deceive people, changing in and out of charachter at an instant.

Ian Lawman - I agree with the comments about his Neo-like appearance on the TV show but I actually met him the other week and had the opportunity to have a chat with him. He is actually a decent guy and his tattoo's are a life story. One side of him depicts positive moments and the other side is negative moments so I don't think they are just for show.

Mark Webb - I have known Mark personally for quite along time now and can never fault him, he is a very down to earth guy and open about his opinions on the paranormal. Unfortunately this is probably why he generally doesen't get much air-time as TV companies don't want to see anyone saying "Or it could just be dust" on their scary and dramatic shows.

Well I hope this has been enlightening for you all.

[conbott]

Every little helps, these actors are trained to change character when necessary but like so many others Living with the dead is all about drama. I think a good idea would be to investigate homes where the residents aren't so susceptible to paranormal suggestion. Whenever someone believes, no matter what, the end results don't even come near to being balanced.

If you can watch the episodes where the occupants become possessed. It's down right embarassing and has nothing to do with proving the existence of ghosts. Sadly the scientific side of things is non existent again. I'd rather there be nothing happen than watch fakery and blatant playing up for the camera. Thanks for the info.

[bobdezon]

Aug 3, 2008 9:57:04 GMT spirichard said:

My group, which is made up of believers, sensitives, a medium and the scpetical members

so your group is 3/4 ineffective then?

[spirichard]

Aug 3, 2008 13:13:24 GMT bobdezon said:

Aug 3, 2008 9:57:04 GMT spirichard said:

My group, which is made up of believers, sensitives, a medium and the scpetical members

so your group is 3/4 ineffective then?

Tis a matter of opinon

I agree with the previous comments about drama too, Ian Lawman was nothing like he is on the TV show when I met him and even when my group did a "halloween special" with ITV Central News we knew it was only a matter of time before a producer asked us "Ok guys can we do some running-around-screaming shots now?"

Basically what I am saying is that if your on TV you have to perform, its not the "bad" psychics fault that they get caught out because they are under so much pressure from their employers to "do a good performance" for the sake of their job! (Not that I agree with it)

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

Why would you associate yourself with a group that is 3/4 woo?
Any good that the sceptic does is automatically tainted with the stench of wooness

[conbott]

Aug 3, 2008 16:49:37 GMT spirichard said:

I agree with the previous comments about drama too, Ian Lawman was nothing like he is on the TV show when I met him and even when my group did a "halloween special" with ITV Central News we knew it was only a matter of time before a producer asked us "Ok guys can we do some running-around-screaming shots now?"

Basically what I am saying is that if your on TV you have to perform, its not the "bad" psychics fault that they get caught out because they are under so much pressure from their employers to "do a good performance" for the sake of their job! (Not that I agree with it)

It just doesn't give them any credibility. In my honest opinion they'd get nearer to any possible true evidence with a proper scientific approach. I really want to see proof that's what it's about to me. But with all the drama and hype in the way we never get near. Unfortunately though the money side plays the biggest role. That's why we're left with nothing. Why don't you see about having a scientific approach to it with your group. You could make the difference we've all been waiting for. Best of luck.

[spirichard]

Most of what we do now leans towards the scientific side of the paranormal, I haven't got as much of it as i'd like on my website but there are a few articles in the "research" section.

The problem concerning TV is that you have to look at it from their point of view, they only care about ratings so if a sceptic just stands there predictably blasting everything the medium comes out with then you have a very boring show on your hands. The TV crew don't care about the credibility of the cast so encourage dramatics just to make the show interesting hence all the screaming and possessions.

Whilst a sceptic show may be interesting to the 2000 odd members of this forum the millions of believers will be utterly dissapointed and discontinue watching the show.

[fluffet]

I guess if your talking about making an entertaining tv show thats one thing and for entertainment purposes ONLY but if its to be a scientific investigation of paranormal claims then there really should be no room for dramatics .
If one cant exist without the other then tv shows should not claim to be scientific in any way making it clear to the viewer that scenes have been staged for entertainment .
I know some do have this disclaimer before or after screening but for me any investigator or skeptic worth their salt wouldnt touch these kind of shows with a barge pole unless they have control of how they and the action is portrayed and carried out .
If there is any play acting or bias editing at all there is no point in them being involved and lending it credibility unless they are miraculously allowed by the production team to expose it on air which isnt likely.

[conbott]

Aug 3, 2008 21:27:22 GMT spirichard said:

Most of what we do now leans towards the scientific side of the paranormal, I haven't got as much of it as i'd like on my website but there are a few articles in the "research" section.

The problem concerning TV is that you have to look at it from their point of view, they only care about ratings so if a sceptic just stands there predictably blasting everything the medium comes out with then you have a very boring show on your hands. The TV crew don't care about the credibility of the cast so encourage dramatics just to make the show interesting hence all the screaming and possessions.

Whilst a sceptic show may be interesting to the 2000 odd members of this forum the millions of believers will be utterly dissapointed and discontinue watching the show.

What the Tv channels don't seem to realise though is that a lot of former believers have now turned away because of the dramatics. We're lucky to get a warning before or after that lasts long enough for you to read and given how small the writing is a lot of people can't see it anyway.

From my point of view, I've watched several different paranormal shows over the years and Most Haunted is a prime example of the poor performance that is televised. When it first aired I was excited and hopeful that we'd finally get proof. WRONG! After all these years they're still screaming and running. They persistently give us psychics who are clearly fake and embarass them without effort, they're even more unprofessional than at the beginning and are more interested in their egos than what fans want.

Trust me it isn't just people on here who are getting tired of the same thing week in week out. I know a few who aren't members here who've become disheartened and realise something's not right. Any credibility these shows have quickly disappears through their own doing.

I wish you all the best with your investigations. If just one group could make a difference and gain well earned credibility I say good on em. They'd certainly earn my respect and interest in their effort to show us true facts and evidence.